lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 01:05:30 +0000 From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Steve deRosier <derosier@...il.com>, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, jeyu@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, aquini@...hat.com, cai@....pw, dyoung@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, gpiccoli@...onical.com, pmladek@...e.com, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, schlad@...e.de, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, keescook@...omium.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, will@...nel.org, mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware_crashed() On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:16:45PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:22:02 +0000 Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > Indeed my issue with devlink is that it did not seem generic enough for > > all devices which use firmware and for which firmware can crash. Support > > should not have to be "add devlink support" + "now use this new hook", > > but rather a very lighweight devlink_crash(device) call we can sprinkly > > with only the device as a functional requirement. > > We can provide a lightweight devlink_crash(device) which only generates > the notification, without the need to register the health reporter or a > devlink instance upfront. But then we loose the ability to control the > recovery, count errors, etc. So I'd think that's not the direction we > want to go in. Care to show me what the diff stat for a non devlink driver would look like? Just keep in mind this taint is 1 line addition. Granted, if we can use SmPL grammar to automate addition of an initial framework to a driver that'd be great, but since the device addition is subsystem specific (device_add() and friends), I don't suspect this will be easily automated. Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists